- Joined
- 4/7/08
- Messages
- 20
- Points
- 11
Hi guys, I'm new here and I want to hit you with a question that's been mulled over many times before. However, given my specific case and the current economic climate, it would be interesting to hear 'up-to-date' views on the matter.
I'm finishing my MEng in Electrical engineering this year and I am considering my options. My short to medium term goal is to work in a quant or structuring team, but I also want to keep the trading door open. I have 2 main options in front of me:
1. Stay at uni and do a PhD in Electrical Engineering. I'm studying in London and PhD's here 'only' take 3 years, which isn't as bad as in the US. I will be 26 by the time I finish. This will give me some time to reflect on what specific area I would like to go into and basically get another solid qualification while the recession is in full swing out there.
2. Go to Cornell (MFE) or Columbia (Mathematical Finance) and hope for the best.
Although I like the idea of starting to work as quickly as possible, it looks like times are getting tough and your average young graduate with a bachelor's or master's degree won't cut the mustard anymore. It now seems like banks have raised their graduate entry standards from 'semi-illiterate' to 'nobel laureate'.
Also, the popularity of all these MF/MFE courses seems to be flooding the job market with way too many equally qualified graduates for a fixed (and maybe even shrinking?) number of positions. Most of the placement stats available on the web sites of MFE programs are between 2001 and 2007, i.e. during the bull market. Who knows what will happen to the class of 2008? hence my fear of being in the first post-subprime generation...
Finally, I had a long phone conversation with a quant head-hunter and he assured me that it was highly unlikely that I would ever move up to become head of a quant team without a PhD.
So do you think my opinion of MFE's vs PhD's is fair in today's economic context?
Many thanks.
I'm finishing my MEng in Electrical engineering this year and I am considering my options. My short to medium term goal is to work in a quant or structuring team, but I also want to keep the trading door open. I have 2 main options in front of me:
1. Stay at uni and do a PhD in Electrical Engineering. I'm studying in London and PhD's here 'only' take 3 years, which isn't as bad as in the US. I will be 26 by the time I finish. This will give me some time to reflect on what specific area I would like to go into and basically get another solid qualification while the recession is in full swing out there.
2. Go to Cornell (MFE) or Columbia (Mathematical Finance) and hope for the best.
Although I like the idea of starting to work as quickly as possible, it looks like times are getting tough and your average young graduate with a bachelor's or master's degree won't cut the mustard anymore. It now seems like banks have raised their graduate entry standards from 'semi-illiterate' to 'nobel laureate'.
Also, the popularity of all these MF/MFE courses seems to be flooding the job market with way too many equally qualified graduates for a fixed (and maybe even shrinking?) number of positions. Most of the placement stats available on the web sites of MFE programs are between 2001 and 2007, i.e. during the bull market. Who knows what will happen to the class of 2008? hence my fear of being in the first post-subprime generation...
Finally, I had a long phone conversation with a quant head-hunter and he assured me that it was highly unlikely that I would ever move up to become head of a quant team without a PhD.
So do you think my opinion of MFE's vs PhD's is fair in today's economic context?
Many thanks.